Jump to content

Talk:Mass in general relativity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pervect (talk | contribs) at 19:02, 23 September 2007 (Comments on re-write, and general clean-up.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPhysics Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"There is no such thing as the energy (or angular momentum, or charge) of a closed universe, according to general relativity..." Yes, because relativity do not explain this world... in general especially.

WP is not a soapbox. Pervect 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a section relating to the mass change in relativistic velocities. will the mass of the body increase in relativistic speeds or not, according to General theory of relativity?

Sajeevk 04:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question doesn't have a simple answer. It was intended that the question
The only difference between the "hot" and "cold" systems in our last question is due to the motion of the particles in the gas inside the pressure vessel. Doesn't this imply that a moving particle has "more gravity" than a stationary particle?
address this issue.

==Comments on the re-write

I'm glad to see other people working on improving my original. I think that some of the emphasis on Noether's theorem as a unifying idea behind mass in GR. has been lost in the rewrite, however. While some of the material is currently still in the history section, I think the idea is of more than historical importance. Pervect 19:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]